Delivered To Your INBOX

‘Slane Girl’ Now Claims Sexual Assault: Was Her Drink Spiked?

The 17-year-old schoolgirl, known as the ‘Slane girl’ has been at the center of an internet misogyny row recently. The story broke when pictures of her performing oral sex on a man, in public at the recent Eminem concert in Slane Castle, Ireland, were circulated on the internet.

The girl became so distraught after the incident that she was admitted to hospital. She has now made an official complaint of sexual assault to the local Gardai (Irish police). She has also complained that her drink may have been spiked.

The Irish Times reported that the schoolgirl was examined at a specialist sexual assault unit. She also had blood tests taken to see if her drink was in fact tampered with on the day that the incident occurred.

The viral photograph shows the girl performing a sex act on one man, but other photographs and video footage show her kissing yet another man at the concert. There is no suggestion at this time that the man who she performed the sex act on was the one who assaulted her or spiked her drink.

Just to make matters worse another video of the Slane girl has been circulating around the web, showing her surrounded by about eight men. The men seem to be verbally abusing her and can be seen pushing her as she kisses a man. The video has subsequently been removed by YouTube and police are reviewing the footage.

The Police say that due to the fact that the schoolgirl is under 18, the images and video footage could constitute child pornography. A number of the Twitter accounts which shared the images and crude comments about the girl have been shut down, as has a “slut-shaming” page on Facebook.

The current storm that has erupted over the pictures of the schoolgirl giving oral sex at the Eminem concert are just the tip of the iceberg though. A large number of complaints have been made by prominent woman and female Ministers in the U.K., that they have been subjected to vile and sexually explicit threats and comments received via their Twitter accounts.

It remains to be seen what charges, if any, are to be levelled against the people accused of spiking the Slane girl’s drink. It will also be interesting to see whether actual sexual assault charges will be brought.

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

7 Responses to “‘Slane Girl’ Now Claims Sexual Assault: Was Her Drink Spiked?”

It's unlikely from what we know of this incident and stats on drinks being spiked. The last stats showed, in the U.K., that off the girls who came in claiming their drinks had been spiked, none were. I'd also like to say the presumptions made and misandry rife in this issue help no one. The conversation is being bullied into submission and one side is clearly at the head of this.

Some people have been complaining about how slanegirl is getting shamed while the guys she serviced publicly are getting praised. Let me take a shot at it ;).

It is actually not a double standard, because both scenarios are vastly different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:

First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It's challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It's just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.

Second, women have potential to do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He's definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only all these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage.

If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it's a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn't his, he's investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn't carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint.

Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or is secretly raising another man's child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it's no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it's a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don't believe me.

Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn't exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the promiscuous-girl stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, long standing traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the "tart" stigma remains.

Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are "hard-wired" to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn't mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven't evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.

Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She's the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risk takers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.

These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we're up against millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don't expect any dramatic overnight reversals.

Understand that I'm just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way. It's just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.

Maybe you're not condemning it, but it still sounds wrong. How about we all just be honest? What ever happened to integrity or responsibility?? STDs don't decide to stay in a woman's body. Men get them too.
Biologically, I will agree that women will benefit more knowing who their baby is from if they are monogamous yes.. but only in a patriarchal society like ours where lineage go through the father. There were times and places where women were fine having a baby without knowing who the father was because all she cared about was that the baby was HERS. Women know this for sure if they bear the child, whereas men have no way of knowing besides a paternity test and THIS is probably the reason men will discourage women being as promiscuous as some men.
As you said, it's for the convenience of men knowing that a child is theirs. Either way, the baby will always be the woman's so we don't need to care, technically. Since women can now support themselves financially without depending on a male partner, maybe people shouldn't put so much emphasis on woman staying chaste for the purpose of knowing who the father is, unless of course she plans to build a life with this man. Not everyone needs the father there and this scares contemporary men. Women can do everything for themselves and men are starting to wonder what their purpose might be in a woman's life. Well, if people were together for companionship and had the integrity to stay faithful, none of this would matter anyway.
Either way, men don't get away with spreading their wild oats here and there and then abandoning the situation. Luckily, they must legally pay child support, so if a man does that to too many women, he will suffer for it gravely in a financial way, whether he morally cares at all. If all humans are responsible, there's no need to compare who has the privilege to have more sex. If you are being unfaithful and dishonest, it's wrong for both men and women. A liar is a liar, and we all pay for our mistakes ultimately, whether we are men or women. We shall be judged equally in the end.

She made a choice for which she does not like the consequences. As far as I´m concerned, she doesn´t need to feel too much ashamed about her VOLUNTARY public sex acts. But, SHAME ON HER indeed for being willing to destroy young men´s lives simply because it is more "convenient" for her to play the victim.